Enacting gun control, even if it’s not needed

President Obama, Gov. John Hickenlooper and assorted anti-gun senators and congressmen have all agreed that the time is right, and we must enact new gun-control laws. They want new laws whether they will do any good or not; the most important thing is to do something anti-gun before the emotion of the moment fades. The assault-weapons ban fits the bill, even though the last one was allowed to expire because it was ineffective.

We need to find and help the poor souls who commit these acts, but they will be secondary or worse, and these tragic acts will continue. Passing a law is easy; solving the problem will be hard.

Howard Spery, Evergreen

This letter was published in the Dec. 22 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Suppose the story from Newton read; “Armed man attempting to shoot his way into an elementary school was killed today by an armed volunteer at that school. The intruder was carrying various weapons and multiple clips of ammunition. His intent upon gaining entrance to the school was unclear. The armed volunteer was injured during the incident but the extent of his injuries was unknown at press time. No other staff, students or bystanders were hurt.”
If this were the story coming out of Newton that day, I guarantee that the Post and most of the newspapers throughout the nation would have have placed it on page 6 with “notes from around the nation,” that is if they ran the story at all. This is what the NRA has proposed and what would work. The Post and the left “decry,” the idea because it would not do what they want to see done. Disarm the victims of gun violence.

zivo24

And suppose the story was, “Twenty children killed by at an elementary school today by a disgruntled/crazed armed volunteer”.
How many times do we read about teachers, coaches, etc being involved in inappropriate relationships with students. We haven’t even figured out a way yet to weed out the potential sexual predators. Shouldn’t we figure that out BEFORE we start arming them?
And before we place yet another burden on the shoulders of the good teachers, how about we start paying them better. The average wage that we pay the people that we charge with taking care of and preparing our children for the future…is ridiculous.

Denverkid78

Banning assault weapons isn’t the answer. There are what, 10 million assault rifles already out there? You can put a ban on any new weapons being made and sold. But what about the existing 10 million rifles in the hands of the people? Government can’t take property without just compensation. So, if you really want to eliminate these weapons as well as banning any new, the government is going to have to buy them back from everyone. At about an average of $1,000 per gun, that’s about $10 billion that the government will have to come up with. How many of the anti-gun people are going to want their taxes increased to remove these guns from our society. This is what it is really going to take….

zivo24

Actually, the government can take away property without compensation if that property is unlawful. Ever hear of a thing called “confiscation”? If assault weapons are outlawed, then the people who choose to keep them will be breaking the law. Bottom line…there is no logical reason for a person to own an assault weapon for the purpose of hunting or personal protection. I come from a family of hunters who were raised by a parent who was a police officer for 28 years…so, don’t accuse me of being “anti-gun”. I’m just pro-common sense.

DR

“there is no logical reason for a person to own an assault weapon for the purpose of hunting or personal protection. I come from a family of hunters who were raised by a parent who was a police officer for 28 years”

Yes there is a logical reason. Its called the second amendment. Hunting and target shooting have nothing to do with the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Get rid of so called assault weapons and you might as well get rid of the 2nd.

People that use the hunting/assault weapon argument irritate me almost more than the total anti-gunners. This “I’m a hunter and a 2nd amendment supporter, but…..” routine that I often hear… you’re simply throwing a segment of the gun owning community under the bus in order to deflect heat off yourself. Reminds me of cigar smokers who do the same to cigarette smokers whenever the anti-smoking crowd starts rattling their sabers.

zivo24

DR – people who use the 2nd amendment argument and don’t realize or understand what it actual says irritate me than actual gun nuts.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the U.S was a new country tghat had no standing army or organized law enforcement. The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own guns so that, if called upon to serve, they could defend our nation.

If we were to follow the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment – the only reason people would be allowed to own or use weapons would be to serve in a well regulated militia. We now have “well regulated militias in the forms of the army, air force, navy, marines, coast guard, national guard, FBI, and state and local law enforcement.

It should also be noted, that when the 2nd Amendment was writiten the only guns that existed were muskets. Our forefathers didn’t even foresee a time when our country would have the armed services that we do now much less the type of weaponry that now exists. If they had, I think they would have been even more specific than they already were.

DR

Ah yes, the tired, old and thoroughly debunked “its only for militias…with muskets” argument…I suppose it would be valid if you ignore the hundreds of documents written at the time where the “founding fathers” clearly explain the 2nd amendment and their views on gun control. As well as various Supreme Court rulings, etc, etc. Yes, I suppose you need to interpret it that way when you don’t have a valid argument.

Robtf777

The time may be even More Right……to once and for all……to consider ARMING various school personnel…….who can meet the requirements of a CCW Permit……to be the “already on scene” “first-responders” to a situation such as when an ARMED INTRUDER shoots his way passed locked doors and begins to shoot people at random.

It may be that, just as teachers are taught the basics of CPR and First Aid BECAUSE they are often the FIRST PEOPLE “on scene” to a medical emergency at a school…….TEACHERS and/or other school personnel are often the FIRST PEOPLE who are already ON-SCENE when a CRIMINAL ACTIVITY erupts without notice……..and ARMED personnel are better able to PREVENT THE LOSS OF LIVES than UNARMED ONES ever are……as the deaths of 20 children proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...